Kansas Attorney General Opinion 2016-015

September 20, 2016
ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 2016-15
Dr. Blake Flanders
President and CEO
Kansas Board of Regents
1000 SW Jackson, Suite 250
Topeka, KS 66612
Re: 	State Departments; Public Officers and Employees‒Firearms‒Personal
and Family Protection Act; Restrictions on Carrying Concealed Handgun;
Concealed Handguns in Public Buildings and Areas; Authorization for
Restricted Access Entrances
Synopsis: 	A state university may not ban concealed carry within a university building
by designating the entire building as a restricted access building. The
Personal and Family Protection Act (PFPA) only allows employees and
persons who obtain authorization pursuant to K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-
7c20(d)(2)(A) through (C) to enter a state or municipal building through a
restricted access entrance without passing through security measures at
public entrances. A state university may adopt rules governing the manner
in which concealed handguns are carried within university buildings. Cited
herein: K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 75-7c20; K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-7c01; 75-7c10;
75-7c17; 75-7c20; K.A.R. 16-11-7.
* 	* 	*
Dear Dr. Flanders:
As the President and CEO of the Kansas Board of Regents, you ask our opinion on two
questions concerning the Personal and Family Protection Act (PFPA), 1 commonly
1 K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-7c01 et seq.

Dr. Blake Flanders
Page 2
known as the Kansas concealed carry law. In particular, you ask about the impact of
2016 House Bill 2502 (HB 2502), 2 which amended various provisions of the PFPA.
Your questions are as follows:
1. 	Do Kansas concealed carry laws, including 2016 HB 2502, permit a state
university to adopt and enforce a policy of prohibiting concealed carry in a
building or area of a building that is considered and treated as restricted
access and wherein entry is only permitted to individuals who have been
preauthorized to enter such restricted buildings or restricted areas of
buildings (such as dorms, labs or class rooms) using a university issued
ID card, key, keycode, swipe card, or other similar device? If so, may that
prohibition be adopted based upon possession of such security devices
such as keys, swipe cards, etc., without requiring that each such individual
also 	go 	through 	the 	pre-screening 	procedures 	set 	forth 	in 	2016 	HB
2052(d)(2)(A)-(C)?
2. 	Do Kansas concealed carry laws, including 2016 HB 2502, permit a state
university to adopt and enforce policies designed to promote safety by
preventing accidental discharge when carrying concealed? For example,
may a university impose a requirement that persons keep their weapons in
a holster while carrying concealed, require semiautomatic handguns to be
carried without a chambered round of ammunition, require that those
carrying a concealed carry revolver do so with the hammer resting on an
empty cylinder, require that any safety mechanism existing on the weapon
[be] engaged, etc.?
Before we address your questions, we begin with some background on the PFPA.
K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-7c20(a) and (b) establish the general rules concerning concealed
carry inside state buildings or public areas of such buildings:
(a) The carrying of a concealed handgun shall not be prohibited in any
public area of any state or municipal building unless such public area has
adequate security measures to ensure that no weapons are permitted to
be carried into such public area and the public area is conspicuously
posted with either permanent or temporary signage approved by the
governing body, or the chief administrative officer, if no governing body
exists, in accordance with K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 75-7c10, and amendments
thereto.
(b) 	The 	carrying 	of 	a 	concealed 	handgun 	shall 	not 	be 	prohibited
throughout any state or municipal building in its entirety unless such
building has adequate security measures at all public access entrances to
ensure that no weapons are permitted to be carried into such building and
2 L. 2016, Ch. 86.

Dr. Blake Flanders
Page 3
the building is conspicuously posted in accordance with K.S.A. 2015
Supp. 75-7c10, and amendments thereto.
In other words, concealed carry generally must be allowed inside a state or municipal
building, or any public area within the building, unless the building provides adequate
security measures 3 at public entrances and signs are posted indicating that concealed
carry is not permitted in the entire building or a public area of the building. State
university buildings that are owned or leased by the state university are considered
“state or municipal buildings” for the purposes of the PFPA. 4
The PFPA allows a state university to exempt a university building from the provisions
of K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-7c20 until July 1, 2017. 5 During an exemption period, a state
university may prohibit concealed carry inside a building simply by posting certain
signage at all exterior entrances to the building. 6 After the exemption period expires, the
building is required to comply with K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-7c20.
Your first question centers on the 2016 	amendments to the PFPA. Prior to the
enactment of HB 2502, K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 75-7c20(d) allowed “authorized personnel” to
carry a concealed handgun into a state or municipal building with adequate security
measures so long as that person entered through a “restricted access entrance.” 7 The
term 	“authorized 	personnel” 	was 	not 	defined 	at 	that 	time, 	but 	“restricted 	access
entrance” was defined as “an entrance that is restricted to the public and requires a key,
keycard, code, or similar device to allow entry to authorized personnel.” 8 Under this
provision, an employee could bypass security measures at the public entrance to the
building and carry a concealed handgun into the building through a restricted access
entrance. Adequate security measures are not required to be installed at restricted
access entrances. 9
The first part of your first question asks whether concealed carry may be banned within
an entire building, or public area thereof, simply by designating the building or area as
“restricted access.” In our opinion, the answer is no. As noted above, K.S.A. 2016 Supp.
75-7c20(a) and (b) state that concealed carry may not be banned inside a state or
3 The PFPA defines “adequate security measures” as “the use of electronic equipment and armed
personnel at public entrances to detect and restrict the carrying of any weapons into the state or
municipal building, or any public area thereof, including, but not limited to, metal detectors, metal detector
wands or any other equipment used for similar purposes to ensure that weapons are not permitted to be
carried into such building or public area by members of the public.” K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-7c20(m)(1).
Prior to July 1, 2016, security personnel were not required to be armed. See K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 75-
7c20(m)(1).
4 K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-7c20(m)(7)(A) (“’State or municipal building’ means a building owned or leased by
such public entity”).
5 K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-7c20(j)(5).
6 K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-7c10(a). See also K.A.R. 16-11-7.
7 “It shall not be a violation of the [PFPA] for a person to carry a concealed handgun into a state or
municipal building so long as that person has authority to enter through a restricted access entrance into
such building which provides adequate security measures.” K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 75-7c20(d).
8 K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 75-7c20(m)(3).
9 K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-7c20(m)(1).

Dr. Blake Flanders
Page 4
municipal building, or within in public area of such building, unless adequate security
measures are in place at all public entrances and the building or public area is posted
as prohibiting concealed carry. The only other means by which concealed carry may be
banned within a state or municipal building in its entirety is through the exercise of an
exemption period, or if K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-7c20 expressly does not apply to the
building or portion thereof. 10 Simply designating a building or public area thereof as
“restricted access” is not enough to authorize a state agency to prohibit concealed carry
within that building or public area and would appear to be squarely contrary to the
legislature’s intent.
The second part of your first question concerns the new screening procedure created by
HB 2502, which allows a public entity to authorize a person, who is not an employee of
that public entity, to bypass adequate security measures at public entrances to the
building and instead enter through a restricted access entrance. This new language,
now found in K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-7c20(d), states in relevant part:
(2) Any person, who is not an employee of the state or a municipality and
is not otherwise authorized to enter a state or municipal building through a
restricted 	access 	entrance, 	shall 	be 	authorized 	to 	enter 	through 	a
restricted access entrance, provided such person:
(A) Is authorized by the chief law enforcement officer, governing body, or
the chief administrative officer, if no governing body exists, to enter such
state or municipal building through a restricted access entrance;
(B) is issued an identification card by the chief law enforcement officer,
governing body, or the chief administrative officer, if no governing body
exists, which includes such person's photograph, name and any other
identifying information deemed necessary by the issuing entity, and which
states on the identification card that such person is authorized to enter
such building through a restricted access entrance; and
(C) executes an affidavit or other notarized statement that such person
acknowledges that certain firearms and weapons may be prohibited in
such building and that violating any such regulations may result in the
revocation of such person's authority to enter such building through a
restricted access entrance. . . .
In the interest of brevity, we will refer to the procedure described in these paragraphs as
the “screening process.” A person authorized through this screening process to enter a
state or municipal building through a restricted access entrance may avoid security
measures 	otherwise 	required 	for 	public 	visitors 	to 	the 	building. 	However, 	“[s]uch
10 See K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-7c20(g), (h) and (k). Secure areas of a corrections facility, jail facility or law
enforcement agency; courtrooms and ancillary courtrooms; and buildings located on the grounds of the
Kansas State School for the Deaf and the Kansas State School for the Blind are not required to comply
with K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-7c20.

Dr. Blake Flanders
Page 5
authorization does not permit the individual to carry a concealed weapon into a public
building, which has adequate security measures . . . and which is conspicuously posted
[as prohibiting concealed carry].”11
In addition to creating the new screening process, HB 2502 added a definition of
“authorized personnel” to clarify who is eligible to use a restricted access entrance. As
noted above, previously that term was not defined by the PFPA. HB 2502 defined
“authorized personnel” as follows: “employees of a state agency . . . and any person
granted authorization pursuant to [the screening process], who are authorized to enter a
state or municipal building through a restricted access entrance.” 12
Your question focuses on the following language of K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-7c20(d)(2):
Any person, who is not an employee of the state or a municipality and is
not otherwise authorized to enter a state or municipal building through a
restricted 	access 	entrance, 	shall 	be 	authorized 	to 	enter 	through 	a
restricted access entrance, provided such person [is authorized via the
screening process].13
In your letter, you suggest that the legislature’s inclusion of the phrase “not otherwise
authorized” indicates that a person may be authorized to enter through a restricted
access entrance even if that person is not an employee of the public agency or
authorized via the new screening process. In other words, you suggest that HB 2502
created three categories of persons who may be authorized to use a restricted access
entrance: employees; persons granted authorization under the screening process; and
those 	persons 	who 	are 	“otherwise 	authorized.” 	Concerning 	the 	third, 	“otherwise
authorized” 	category of persons, you further ask, “how and by whom may such
authorization be conferred?”
To answer your question, we consider the plain language of K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-
7c20. Our analysis is guided by the rules of statutory interpretation:
The most fundamental rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the
legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained. We first attempt to
ascertain legislative intent by reading the plain language of the statutes
and giving common words their ordinary meanings. When a statute is
plain and unambiguous, we do not speculate as to the legislative intent
behind it and will not read into the statute something not readily found in it.
. . . However, even if the language of the statute is clear, we must still
consider various provisions of an act in pari materia with a view of
reconciling 	and 	bringing 	those 	provisions 	into 	workable 	harmony 	if
possible. Additionally, we must construe statutes to avoid unreasonable or
11 K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-7c20(d)(2).
12 K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-7c20(m)(2) (emphasis added).
13 Emphasis added.

Dr. Blake Flanders
Page 6
absurd results, and we presume the legislature does not intend to enact
useless or meaningless legislation. 14
Reading the provisions of K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-7c20(d)(2) together with the other
provisions of the PFPA, we believe the meaning of “otherwise authorized” is clear.
Instead of creating a third category of persons eligible to use a restricted access
entrance, 	we 	believe 	it 	merely 	refers 	to 	persons 	who 	have 	already 	received
authorization under the new screening process. We reach this conclusion for two
reasons.
First, the unambiguous definitions of “restricted access entrance” and “authorized
personnel” make it clear that for the purposes of the PFPA, only “employees of a state
agency . . . and any person granted authorization pursuant to [the screening process]”
are eligible to bypass adequate security measures at public entrances to a building.
Neither of those definitions expressly refers to, or implies, a third category of “otherwise
authorized” persons. To read a third category into those definitions would be to “read
into a statute something not readily found in it,” in contravention of the rules of statutory
interpretation. 15
Second, creating a third category of persons eligible to bypass security measures,
without establishing rules for determining which persons qualify for that category, would
be inconsistent with the legislative intent expressed in other provisions of the PFPA.
The PFPA includes specific rules limiting the ability of state agencies to restrict or
prohibit concealed carry inside a public building. The legislature has defined the types of
security measures that must be in place; 16 required security personnel to be armed; 17
defined the types of weapons that such security measures must detect and restrict;18
established a procedure for a public agency to temporarily exempt a building from the
requirements of K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-7c20; 19 and prescribed the placement and
content of signage that must be in place. 20 By doing so, the legislature removed the
ability of state agencies to decide those detailed matters for themselves.
An example of this legislative trend is found within K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-7c20(d)(2)
itself. The legislature could have authorized public agencies to develop their own
screening procedures but chose instead to require the uniform process established in
subsections (d)(2)(A) through (C) of that statute. Although K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-
7c20(d)(2) allows a state agency “[to] develop criteria for approval of individuals . . . to
enter the state or municipal building through a restricted access entrance,” it also limits
the criteria that may be used: “[a]n individual who has been issued a concealed carry
14 Northern Natural Gas Co. v. ONEOK Field Services Co., 296 Kan. 906, 918 (2013), quoting Stewart
Title of the Midwest v. Reece & Nichols Realtors, 294 Kan. 553, 564–65 (2012) (internal citations
omitted).
15 Id.
16 K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-7c20(m)(1).
17 K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-7c20(m)(1).
18 K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-7c20(m)(8).
19 K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-7c20(i).
20 K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-7c10(j).

Dr. Blake Flanders
Page 7
permit by the state of Kansas shall not be required to submit to another state and
national criminal records check before issuance and renewal of such authorization.”
The legislature has also declared the public policy of the state to include ensuring that
“no honest, law-abiding person who qualifies under the provisions of [the PFPA] is
subjectively or arbitrarily denied the person’s rights.” 21 In our opinion, reading K.S.A.
2016 Supp. 75-7c20(d)(2) to give public agencies carte blanche to craft their own rules
as to who may bypass security measures is inconsistent with that public policy and also
ignores the other provisions of the PFPA, which consistently limit the means by which
public agencies may restrict concealed carry.
In short, we believe that the provisions of the PFPA, when read together, do not support
an interpretation of HB 2502 that would allow a state university to create its own system
of authorizing select persons to use a restricted access entrance. If a state university
wishes to allow non-employees, such as students, to use a restricted access entrance,
the university must require those persons to follow the screening process prescribed by
K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-7c20(d)(2)(A) through (C).
Your second question asks whether Kansas law permits a state university to adopt rules
to govern the manner of carrying a concealed handgun on campus. We believe the
answer to this question is yes.
In Attorney General Opinion No. 2016-9 we considered the application of the PFPA to
state medical care facilities. In that opinion, we noted:
With respect to state facilities, K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 75-7c20 generally
requires concealed carry to be allowed inside a state building unless the
building is exempt or provides adequate security measures and signage.
But neither the PFPA nor any other provision of law restricts the state
government from adopting rules to govern the manner of carrying or
storing a concealed handgun once the handgun is inside a state-owned or
leased building.
We therefore believe that under current law, a state agency may regulate
the carrying or storage of a concealed handgun by patients and other
members of the public while inside a state facility. In the absence of a
statute to the contrary, we believe the state may require, for example, that
concealed 	handguns 	carried 	inside 	state 	facilities 	be 	holstered 	or
unloaded, or it may prohibit patients from carrying a concealed handgun
into an x-ray room. Medical personnel may also require that a patient
remove a concealed handgun from his or her person before medications
or procedures are provided.
21 K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-7c17(a).

Dr. Blake Flanders
Page 8
We believe the same analysis applies to your second question; the 2016 amendments
to the PFPA do not alter our conclusion in Attorney General Opinion No. 2016-9. It is
our opinion that a state university may create rules governing the manner of carrying a
concealed handgun within campus buildings in the absence of a statute removing or
limiting its authority to do so. However, we would caution that any such rules must be
consistent with the PFPA.
Sincerely,
Derek Schmidt
Attorney General
Sarah Fertig
Assistant Attorney General
DS:AA:SF:sb